> > > > How familiar are you with MS Proxy? It wasn't a firewall > > I'm willing to bet real money that the majority of the MS proxy > users used MS proxy as their only layer of defense.
And what does that have to do with what the product was or wasn't? NOTHING. > > > and wasn't marketed as a firewall. > > I could care less what the spin doctors of _any_ company > decide to (not) market something as. Again, this has NOTHING to do with my original assertions. > > > > When did Microsoft submit MS Proxy for ICSA certification? > > When did this become a requisite for calling something a firewall? > (No, I _know_ you didn't say that it was. I'm simply stating that > it's an invalid point.) No, Paul is the one who has problems with assuming that all responses inherently imply that he said something to which they're a counterattack. My POINT is, MS didn't call it a firewall, didn't market it as a firewall, didn't submit it to any body for certification as a firewall and didn't design it as a firewall. > > > > Do you people ever actually have constructive discussions, or is > > there some point in playing pedantic semantics all day? > > This from someone who opened up her discussion in a thread by > pointing out typos. That's because I've watched Paul inundate this list with his pedantic, obsessive tripe over and over again. > And obstructing an otherwise constructive > discussion Oh, really? By posting links regarding what ISA is? By pointing out that just because Paul claims it to be the next "incantation" of MS Proxy doesn't make it so? > by flaming people and making a big point of the > vast semantial differences between MS proxy and ISA server. Really? WHERE in my original post did you find that, Mikael? Where? The only one who was making a big point of this was Paul, and now you. Give me a break. Re-read my first post. > > > > ISA is not MS Proxy. How much clearer do I have to be? > > The name is apparently different, and ISA server has more > features. And windows 95 isn't windows 3.11+win32s with a new > program manager, released three years later... or... wait.. And next you're going to tell me that NT is Win9.x, right? After all, both Windows 95 and NT were used as corporate environments as client operating systems, even though that wasn't the intent of the product. Both kinda looked the same. Both were made by Microsoft, and there was probably some overlap in the code base. Therefore, based on your logic at the beginning of this post, they must be the same thing. You know, if some of you people could get past your rabid hatred of anything bearing the Microsoft label, perhaps you'd be worth conversing with. Work on the reading comprehension, Mikael, and go back and look at my first post in this thread. Then again, that would require you people to actually learn to differentiate between your opinions and reality. Laura _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
